(PC) Allen v. California Department of Corrections ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN ALDON ALLEN, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0213 JLT SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING 13 v. ) ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A ) 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ) COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF CORRECTIONS, et al., ) 15 ) (Doc. 11) Defendants. ) 16 ) ) 17 18 John Aldon Allen asserts that he suffered civil rights violations during the course of his 19 confinement and seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of the Eighth Amendment and 20 “CDCR Title 15” after he contracted COVID-19. (See generally Doc. 10.) 21 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. 11.) The 22 magistrate judge observed that “[i]t is clear that COVID-19 poses a substantial risk of serious harm.” 23 (Id. at 7, citing Plata v. Newsom, 445 F.Supp.3d 557, 559 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020).) However, the 24 magistrate judge observed that “to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against the warden, and 25 the other defendants named, Plaintiff must provide more than generalized allegations that the warden 26 and other defendants have not done enough regarding overcrowding or prison movement or housing 27 assignment to control the spread.” (Id. at 7, citing Booth v. Newsom, 2020 WL 6741730, at *3 (E.D. 28 Cal. Nov. 17, 2020); Blackwell v. Covello, 2021 WL 915670, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2021); Benitez 1 v. Sierra Conservation Ctr., Warden, 2021 WL 4077960, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2021), adopted, 2021 2 WL 4593841 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2021).) 3 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff also failed to “link any prison official responsible for his 4 housing placement,” and he did not allege “any Defendant knew that placing infected or potentially 5 infected inmates in the same Facility and Building would pose a serious risk of infection to non- 6 infected inmates housed there and nonetheless proceeded in the face of this risk.” (Doc. 11 at 8.) The 7 magistrate judge concluded Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting a conclusion that “Defendants 8 were deliberately indifferent to the spread of the disease,” and instead the allegations “demonstrate that 9 Defendants engaged in active conduct to manage the spread of the virus.” (Id. at 9.) The magistrate 10 judge also determined Plaintiff alleged facts supporting a conclusion that “any Defendant was 11 deliberately indifferent to his medical needs once he contracted COVID-19.” (Id. at 10.) Finally, the 12 magistrate judge noted Plaintiff sought to hold the defendants liable for violations of regulations under 13 “CDCR Title 15,” and found such a claim was not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which addresses 14 rights arising under federal law. (Id. at 10-11; see also Doc. 10 at 6-7.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 15 recommended the first amended complaint be dismissed. (Id. at 11.) Because the Court previously 16 identified the applicable legal standards and Plaintiff failed to cure the pleading deficiencies, the 17 magistrate judge recommended the dismissal be without leave to amend. (Id.) 18 On June 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations.1 (Doc. 14.) 19 Although Plaintiff renews his argument that he should not have been transferred from NKSP for his 20 court proceedings, he does not show the transfer placed him at risk of contracting COVID-19 or that the 21 defendants acted with deliberate indifference performing the transfer. See, e.g., Stephen v. Tilestone, 22 2021 WL 289379, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021) (finding the plaintiff failed to allege Eighth 23 Amendment violation related to a prison transfer that purportedly put him at extreme risk of contracting 24 25 1 The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff on April 14, 2023, and it contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. 11 at 12.) On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. 26 (Doc. 12.) The Court re-served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff at his new address of record. However, Plaintiff filed another notice of change of address on May 2, 2023. (Doc. 13.) The Court re-served the Findings and 27 Recommendations at the identified address on May 4, 2023. At the same time Plaintiff filed his Objections, he submitted a Notice of Change of Address. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff reports he received the Findings and Recommendations on May 23, 28 2023. (Id. at 1.) Due to the changing addresses and reported delay in receiving the Findings and Recommendations, the 1 |} COVID-19 because he did not allege facts showing how any particular defendant violated his rights). 2 || Plaintiff also fails to identify any facts in his First Amended Complaint to show the defendants acted 3 || with deliberate indifference to him, either with actions taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at th 4 || prison or the medical care he received after contracting the virus. As the magistrate judge observed, 5 || Plaintiff clearly identified actions taken at the prison—including testing protocols, quarantine, and 6 || isolating inmates who tested positive— in response to the pandemic. To the extent they failed to 7 |}comply with identified COVID-19 guidelines and protocols, this alone is insufficient to support a clai 8 || under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Greer v. Caravajal, 2022 WL 4826513, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Jun 9 || 30, 2022) (“When examining whether a prison official subjectively acted with deliberate indifference 10 || the risk of COVID-19, the key inquiry is not whether the official perfectly responded, complied with 11 ||every CDC guideline, or whether his efforts ultimately averted the risk”), adopted 2022 WL 4842927 12 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022); see also Jones v. Sherman, Case No. 21-1093-ADA-EPG, 2022 WL 13 || 783452, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2022) (“the failure to follow certain COVID-19 guidelines, withou' 14 || more, is insufficient to satisfy the subjective prong of the deliberate indifference standard”), adopted 15 || 2022 WL 4238875 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2022). 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 17 || review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file—including Plaintiff's objections—the 18 || Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 19 || Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 11) are ADOPTED in full. 21 2. The instant action is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim. 22 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this action. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ll Dated: _ June 19, 2023 ( LAW pA L. wan 26 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28